comparative study on performance evaluation of routing ...hybrid routing protocols are those...
TRANSCRIPT
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056
Volume: 03 Issue: 04| Apr -2016 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2016, IRJET ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal Page 1225
Comparative Study on Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols in MANETs
Tegegn Getinet Tesfaye1, Li Yao Hui2
Tianjin University of Technology and Education, School of Information Technology and Engineering
Add: 1310 Dagu Nan Road, Hexi District Tianjin, P.R.China
Abstract: A mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is a collection
of wireless mobile nodes communicating with each other
using multi-hop wireless links without any existing network
infrastructure or centralized administration. Due to varying
network topology the most common challenging factor in
MANET is routing [1][2]. The purpose of this paper is to
study, understand, analyze and to evaluate the performance
between four mobile ad-hoc routing protocols: Ad-hoc On-
demand Distance Vector (AODV), Destination sequenced
distance vector (DSDV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) and
Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP). DSR has the optimum
performance in terms of mobility and speed in small scale
networks but it loses its performance when the network size
is increased. AODV is best suited when the load of the
network is increased. ZRP is hybrid nature and comparable
performance in average end-to-end delay and average
throughput; but it is the worst performance in packet
delivery ratio. This simulation results were analyzed by
graphical manner and trace file based on different metrics;
such as average throughput, packet delivery ratio (PDR) and
average end to end delay.
Keywords: MANET, AODV, DSDV, DSR, ZRP, throughput,
delay and PDR.
1. INTRODUCTION
In recent years MANET has gained popularity and lots of
research is being done on different aspects of MANET. It is
an infrastructure less network having no fixed base
stations MANET is characterized by dynamic topology low
bandwidth and low power consumption. All the nodes in
the network are moving i.e. topology of the network is
dynamic so the nodes can act both as host as well as router
to route information unnecessary for its use. This kind of
infrastructure-less network is very useful in situation in
which ordinary wired networks is not feasible like
battlefields, natural disasters etc. The nodes which are in
the transmission range of each other communicate directly
otherwise communication is done through intermediate
nodes which are willing to forward packet hence these
networks are also called as multi-hop networks
2. Characteristics of MANETS
Some of the major characteristics of these protocols are:
Topology: Since the nodes are mobile, the topology may change rapidly and the connectivity within the network varies with time.
Limited Resources: MANETs are bandwidth and power constrained [3]. Moreover the battery life of mobile nodes is also a limiting factor in their operation.
Distributed Operation: There is no central control and
nodes collaborate them to implement functions.
Security: The wireless links lack defense against threats.
Various attacks such as denial of services, eavesdropping,
replay attacks are possible. MANETs are resource
constrained and the network topology changes
dynamically. Therefore routing must be done effectively
and hence the need of efficient routing protocols.
3. MANET Routing Protocols
3.1 Protocol Classifications
The routing protocols in ad hoc networks categorized as
proactive routing protocols, reactive routing protocols,
and hybrid routing protocols [4].
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056
Volume: 03 Issue: 04| Apr -2016 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2016, IRJET ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal Page 1226
3.1.1 Proactive Routing Protocols
Proactive routing protocols are those protocols, in which
the routes are maintained to all the nodes, including those
nodes to which packets are not sent. An example of
proactive routing protocols in ad hoc networks is:
Destination sequenced distance vector (DSDV), Optimized
Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR).
3.1.2 Reactive Routing Protocols Reactive routing protocols are those protocols in which the
route between the two nodes is constructed only when the
communication occurs between the two nodes. Such type
of routing protocols is ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector
Routing Protocol (AODV) and Dynamic Source Routing
Protocol (DSR) [5].
3.1.3 Hybrid Routing Protocols:
Hybrid routing protocols are those protocols in which the
combined approach of proactive routing and reactive
routing are used for the route generation between the
nodes. The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) is such a hybrid
reactive/proactive routing protocols. Figure 2.1 shows the
categorization of various mobile ad hoc network routing
protocols and their subtypes [6].
Fig 2.1 Classification ad hoc routing protocols
3.2 Overview of Routing protocols
In this section, a brief overview of the routing operations
performed by the familiar protocols ad hoc On Demand
Distance Vector Routing Protocol (AODV) and Dynamic
Source Routing Protocol (DSR), Destination sequenced
distance vector (DSDV), and Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)
are discussed.
3.2.1 Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV)
The AODV [7] routing protocol is based on DSDV and DSR
[8] algorithm. It uses the periodic beaconing and sequence
numbering procedure of DSDV and a similar route
discovery procedure as in DSR. However, there are two
major differences between DSR and AODV. The most
distinguishing difference is that in DSR each packet carries
full routing information, whereas in AODV the packets
carry the destination address. This means that AODV has
potentially less routing overheads than DSR. The other
difference is that the route replies in DSR carry the address
of every node along the route, whereas in AODV the route
replies only carry the destination IP address and the
sequence number. The advantage of AODV is that it is
adaptable to highly dynamic networks. However, node
may experience large delays during route construction,
and link failure may initiate another route discovery,
which introduces extra delays and consumes more
bandwidth as the size of the network increases.
3.2.2 Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)
It uses the concept of [10] source routing in which the
node create routes only when source requires [11]. It
maintains the Route cache which contains the recently
discovered routes. As it is on demand routing protocol, the
routing overhead is less. This Protocol is composed of two
essential parts of route discovery and route maintenance.
Route Discovery: When a source node S wants to send a
packet to the destination D, it checks its route cache first. If
it finds the route, then the source uses the available route
in cache. If route not found or the route cache has an
expired route, then it initiates the route discovery process.
Route discovery requires 7 fields during this process such
as sourceId, destnationId, RequestID, Addresslist, Hoplimit,
Network Interface List, Acknowledgment list. Then source
node broadcasts the packet to its neighbor. Moreover,
source node also maintains a replica of send packet in its
send buffer. Packets can be dropped if send buffer is
overflow or the time limit for route discovery is over. Any
intermediate node having route to destination can
Ad hoc routing Protocol
protocols
Proactive or Table driven
Hybrid Reactive or on demand
DSDV
OLSR
WRP
AODV
DSR
TORA
ZRP
SHARP ZHLS
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056
Volume: 03 Issue: 04| Apr -2016 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2016, IRJET ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal Page 1227
generates route reply [11] else process continues and
packet eventually reaches the destination and it replies to
the source node. Route Maintenance: Route maintenance
includes monitoring the routes against failure through
route error packets and route cache [10]. There is no need
of keeping routing table in DSR [9] protocol. Route cache
can further decrease route discovery overhead. However
DSR is not scalable to large networks and packet size
grows with length of the route due to source routing.
3.2.3 Destination Sequence Distance Vector (DSDV)
The Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector (DSDV)
Routing Algorithm is based on the idea of the classical
Bellman-Ford. Routing Algorithm. Routing Loop problem is
solved which is present in Bellman-Ford algorithm. To
solve the routing loop problem, this routing makes use of
sequence numbers.
Each mobile node maintains a routing table that includes
the number of hops to reach the destination, all available
destinations and the sequence number tagged by the
destination node. The sequence number is used to
distinguish stale routes from new ones and thus avoid the
formation of loops. So, the update is both time-driven and
event-driven. A "full dump" or an incremental update
technique is used to update the routing table.
A full dump sends the full routing table to the neighbors
and could span many packets whereas in an incremental
update only those entries from the routing table are sent
that has a metric change since the last update and it must
fit in a packet. When the network is relatively stable,
incremental updates are sent to avoid extra traffic and full
dump are relatively infrequent .If there is space in the
incremental update packet then those entries may be
included whose sequence number has changed. DSDV
protocol guarantees loop free paths and Count to infinity
problem is reduced in DSDV.
3.2.4 ZRP (Zone Routing Protocol)
ZRP is [11] hybrid routing protocol with both a proactive
and a reactive routing. ZRP reduce the control overhead of
proactive routing protocols and decrease the latency
caused by route discovery in reactive routing protocols. In
ZRP the nodes in the network are divided into various
zones. The routing within the Zone is done using Intra
Zone Routing Protocol (IARP) while packets between
various zones are routed using Inter Zone routing Protocol
(IERP). When the node has to send a packet, it checks the
destination’s zone first. Routing within zone is done with
IARP. When the destination is in different zone, the node
sends the route request [12] to the peripheral Node. If the
node receiving the request has the route to the destination,
it returns with route to the destination otherwise the
process continuous till the destination is reached. During
this process, routing information is stored in route request
packet to enable route reply when needed.
4. Simulation Result and Performance Evaluation
4.1 Simulation Environment
Network simulator (version 2.33), widely known as NS2, is
simply an event driven simulation tool that has proven
useful in studying the dynamic nature of communication
networks. Simulation of wired as well as wireless network
functions and protocols (e.g., routing algorithms, TCP, UDP)
can be done using NS2.
A simulation study was carried out to study and evaluate
the performance of routing protocols in MANET such as
AODV, DSDV, DSR and ZRP based on following metrics:
Average throughput, Packet delivery ratio and End to End
delay with the following parameters:
Table 4.1 Simulation parameters
Parameter Value
Simulator NS2 (version 2.33)
Channel Type Channel/WirelessChannel
Radio propagation
model
Propagation/TwoRayGround
Antenna Type Antenna/Omni Antenna
Link Layer Type LL
Area 1500 X 1500
Simulation Time 250 sec
Traffic Type CBR Packet Size 512 bytes MAC Type MAC/802_11 Packet Rate 1 Maximum Speed 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 m/s Pause Time 0, 40, 80, 120, 160 sec
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056
Volume: 03 Issue: 04| Apr -2016 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2016, IRJET ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal Page 1228
Protocols AODV, DSDV, DSR, ZRP Number of Nodes 25, 50, 75, 100
4.2 Analysis and Results Comparison
In this section we evaluate the performance of AODV,
DSDV, DSR and ZRP protocols on the following parameters:
4.2.1 Average Throughput
Throughput: It is the rate of successfully transmitted data
packets in a unit time in the network during the simulation.
Table 4.2 Average Throughput versus Network Load
No. of nodes
AODV DSDV DSR ZRP
25 7.06 1.35 7.12 24.4 50 50.46 18.12 30.82 30.16 75 85.85 19.51 34.69 21.28 100 98.16 5.61 75.36 18.59
Fig.
4.1
Average Throughput by varying network loads.
Result:
In this simulation we use the constant maximum
speed 10m/s and pause time 0 sec and number of
nodes from 25-100.
As we see in figure 4.1 the average throughput of the
ad-hoc routing protocols under varying network load.
It is seen that AODV performs the best compared to
the other protocols with a peak throughput of 98.16
kbps.
In AODV and DSR, the throughput increases with
respect to number of nodes increases at all point.
DSDV also increase like AODV and DSR except to node
100. DSR could not sustain the performance at higher
network load. DSDV significantly has lower
performance because of frequent link changes and
connection failures. ZRP performs better than DSDV.
Table 4.3 Average Throughput versus Pause Time
Pause Time
AODV DSDV DSR ZRP
0 50.46 18.12 30.82 42.62 40 51.16 20.02 60.32 37.31 80 38.93 14.98 49.73 32.55
120 45.21 16.15 22.94 29.21 160 31.58 19.95 33.16 53.69
Fig 4.2 Average Throughput by varying mobility
Result: In this simulation, the number of nodes is kept constant at
50 and the pause time or the mobility of the nodes is
varied. Based on the above simulation results the average
throughput of AODV is high initially and reduces when the
pause time increases. The throughput of DSR high but it
gives fluctuated result. DSDV is the worst average
throughput. This is because DSDV has difficulty finding
routes in higher mobility because of its proactive nature.
The throughput value of ZRP shows better performance
with respect to DSDV. However, a reactive protocol AODV
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056
Volume: 03 Issue: 04| Apr -2016 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2016, IRJET ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal Page 1229
and DSR maintains consistency in varying mobility and
performs better than the proactive and hybrid protocols
DSDV and ZRP.
Table 4.4 Average Throughput versus Maximum Speed
Max speed AODV DSDV DSR ZRP
10 50.46 18.12 30.82 34.39
20 27.57 8.67 15.81 24.69
30 40.08 2.7 24.79 15.67
40 16.37 0.84 17.81 2.92
50 17.45 6.91 16.47 19.24
Fig 4.3 Average Throughput with varied speed
Result:
In this simulation, the number of nodes is kept constant at
50 and the maximum speed of the nodes is varied. The
pause time is taken as 0 seconds so that maximum
mobility variance can be considered. Based on this the
AODV protocol perform best throughput and the DSR
protocol also perform well but both are fluctuated result
when the speed changes. DSDV suffers decrease in
throughput close to 0.84 kbps at maximum speed (40 sec).
ZRP again performed better than DSDV as its performance
closely matched with the reactive protocols
4.2.2 Packet Delivery Ratio
It is the ratio of data packets received to packets sent. It
tells us about the fraction of the packets delivered from
source to destination when the network is subjected to
different traffic conditions. It also gives an idea about the
number of packets dropped or forwarded by the routing
protocol.
Table 4.5 Packet delivery ratio Vs Network Load
No of odes AODV DSDV DSR ZRP 25 0.1593 0.0562 0.1877 0.0512 50 0.6422 0.2445 0.6976 0.1458 75 0.8945 0.389 0.9459 0.16731 100 0.7039 0.1476 0.6105 0.08264
Fig 4.4 Packet Delivery Ratio with varied network load.
Result:
Figure 4.4 gives the packet delivery ratio of all the
protocols when the nodes are varied. Looking at the trend,
it can observe when the network load is increased; the
entire packet delivery ratio (PDR) for all the protocols gets
reduced.
DSR has a peak packet delivery ratio of close to 95 % when
number of nodes is 75. But as the load is increased, the
performance degrades.
For a large network scenario (100 nodes), PDR comes
down to as low as 61% which shows that DSR does not
perform well when the network size is complex. Likewise
the PDR of AODV close to 90 % when the network load is
75 but as the load is increased, the performance degrades.
Unlike AODV, DSDV and DSR, The packet delivery ratio of
ZRP is consistent between 5 to 16 % throughout the
different scale of networks.
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056
Volume: 03 Issue: 04| Apr -2016 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2016, IRJET ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal Page 1230
DSDV has a low packet delivery ratio throughout the
different scale of networks as compared to AODV, and DSR.
But in case of ZRP, it gives lowest packet delivery ratio.
Table 4.6 Packet delivery ratio versus pause time
Pause T AODV DSDV DSR ZRP 0 0.6422 0.2445 0.6976 0.08218
40 0.6535 0.2552 0.7731 0.09011 80 0.5387 0.1917 0.6409 0.08262
120 0.578 0.2211 0.463 0.13849 160 0.4065 0.2542 0.4259 0.06929
Fig 4.5 Packet delivery ratio with varied mobility
Result:
The packet delivery ratio is shown in figure 4.5. DSR and
AODV perform much better than DSDV and ZRP. ZRP
delivers only 13 percent of all CBR packets initiated by the
source at pause time. While AODV and DSR delivers almost
70 to 80 percent of packets
Table 4.6 Packet delivery ratio versus maximum speed
speed AODV DSDV DSR ZRP 10 0.6422 0.2445 0.6976 0.0913 20 0.761 0.1173 0.7056 0.0373 30 0.6618 0.0736 0.7722 0.0193 40 0.7259 0.1959 0.6198 0.0934 50 0.6301 0.1252 0.6097 0.1205
Fig.4.6 Packet delivery ratio by varying speed.
Result:
In the above simulation, the number of nodes is kept
constant at 50 and the maximum speed is varied. Based on
simulation results the PDR of AODV and DSR is high and
zigzag when the speed increases to 50 m/s the PDR of
AODV and DSR is reduced.
Packet delivery ratio in ZRP drops to as low as 12 % in
high speed. DSDV again performed better than ZRP.
4.2.3 Average End to End Delay:
This delay includes processing and queuing delay in each
intermediate none i.e. the time elapsed until a demanded
route is available. Unsuccessful route establishments are
ignored.
Table 4.8 Average End to End delay versus number of
nodes
No. node
AODV DSDV DSR ZRP
25 1988.4 2.33747 4699.29 2277.12
50 611.427 41.3168 556.927 1081.31
75 203.31 15.7116 1573.25 256.274
100 584.477 97.5691 3279.31 443.517
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056
Volume: 03 Issue: 04| Apr -2016 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2016, IRJET ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal Page 1231
Fig 4.7 Average End to End delay by varying network load
Result:
In Figure 4.7 we noticed that the performance of DSR is
degrading due to increase in the number of nodes in the
networks. The performance of the ZRP and AODV is
slightly better. Average delay is less for DSDV routing
protocol and remains constant as the number of nodes
increases.
Table 4.9 Average End to End delay versus speed
Speed AODV DSDV DSR ZRP 10 611.427 41.3168 556.927 2114.08 20 699.912 234.385 1440.56 1772.574 30 640.017 27.8547 1366.87 1226.58 40 341.542 218.938 1984.9 826.382
Fig. 4.9 Average End to End delay by varying speed.
Table 4.10 Average End to End delay versus pause time
Pause time AODV DSDV DSR ZRP 0 611.427 41.3168 556.972 698.855
40 784.958 18.6658 2807.31 1440.86 80 1564.42 134.842 5152.07 2135.75
120 1086.45 67.7411 2122.499 1239.12 160 1151.2 66.0885 4536.65 712.573
Fig 4.9 Average End to End by varying mobility.
Result:
From the above two graph (fig 4.8 and fig 4.9) the average
End to End delays versus speed and average end to end
delay versus pause time shows that average end-to-end
network delay. We didn’t see much difference between the
delay values of AODV and DSDV. But DSDV performed
slightly better than AODV and showed a constant
performance with an average delay. Comparatively, DSR
showed high delay values at speed 40 m/s and pause time
80 sec. ZRP also showed a high delay values as compared
to DSDV and AODV especially at maximum speed of 10 and
50 sec.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, the performance of the four MANET Routing
protocols such as AODV, DSDV, DSR and ZRP was analyzed
using NS-2 Simulator. We have done comprehensive
simulation results of Average End-to-End delay, packet
delivery ratio and average throughput and over the
routing protocols AODV, DSDV, DSR and ZRP by varying
network size, mobility and speed.
DSR has the optimum performance in terms of mobility
and speed in small scale networks. DSR loses its
performance when the network size is increased. AODV
has shown consistent results irrespective of the network
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056
Volume: 03 Issue: 04| Apr -2016 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2016, IRJET ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal Page 1232
load, speed and mobility this is because of the route table
entry mechanism employed. DSDV is a proactive routing
protocol and suitable for limited number of nodes with low
mobility and speed due to the storage of routing
information in the routing table at each node.
The performance of end to end delay is high for large
number of nodes in terms of ZRP and end to end delay
performance is high for less number of nodes in DSR.
When we conclude DSR should be the first preference in
terms of small scale networks with any mobility or speed.
AODV is best suited when the load of the network is
increased. ZRP is hybrid nature and comparable
performance in average end-to-end delay and average
throughput; but it is the worst performance in packet
delivery ratio.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all we acknowledge to Mr. Juma Joram for his
support to complete this research successfully. Then we
would like to thank our parents, friends for their
invaluable suggestion and who helped us a lot in finalizing
this thesis within the limited time frame.
REFERENCES:
[1] Akshai Aggarwal, Savita Gandhi and Nirbhay Chaubey “A Study of Secure Routing Protocol in Mobile Ad hoc Networks” in Proceedings of National Conferences on Advancement in Wireless Technology and Applications, 18-19 December 2008, SVNIT, Surat, India.
[2] Akshai Aggarwal, Savita Gandhi and Nirbhay Chaubey “Key Management Consideration in MANETs” in Proceedings of National Conference on Cryptography and Network Security (NCCNS),18-19 February 2009, VIT Unviersity, Vellore, India.
[3] Robinpreet Kaur & Mritunjay Kumar Rai “A Novel Review on Routing Protocols in MANETs”, Undergraduate Academic Research Journal (UARJ), ISSN : 2278 – 1129, Volume-1, Issue-1, 2012
[4] P. Misra, “Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks,” 2006. http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cis788-9/adhoc_routing/
[5] D. Johnson, D. Maltz and J. Broch, “DSR the Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc
Networks,” In: C. E. Perkins, Ed., Ad Hoc Networking, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, 2001, pp. 139-172.
[6] C. E. Perkins, E. M. Belding-Royer and S. R. Das, “Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing,” 2nd IEEE Workshop on Workshop Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, New Orleans, 25-26 February 1999, pp. 90-100.
[7] S. Das, C. Perkins, E. Royer, Ad hoc on demand distance vector (AODV) routing, Internet Draft, draft-ietf-manetaodv-11.txt, work in progress, 2002. [8] D. Johnson, D. Maltz, J. Jetcheva, The dynamic source
routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks, Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-manet-dsr-07.txt, work in progress, 2002.
[9] Sunil Taneja and Ashwani Kush “A survey of Routing
Protocols in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks” , International
Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 1,
No. 3, August 2010 ISSN: 2010-0248
[10] Dr.D.Siva Kumar “Review: Swarm Intelligent based
routing Protocols for Mobile Adhoc Networks” International
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Vol. 2 (12),
2010, 7225-7233
[11] Elizabeth M. Royer, “A Review of current routing
protocols for Ad-Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks”, IEEE
Personal Communication, April 1999
[12]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Routing_Protocol
[20th Jan. 2013,7:09 pm IST]
[13] Nicklas Beijar “Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)”,
Networking Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology
P.O. Box 3000, FIN-02015 HUT, Finland
[14] L. Abusalah, A. Khokhar and M. Guizani, “A Survey of
Secure Mobile Ad Hoc Routing Protocols”, “IEEE
Communications Surveys & Tutorials”, vol. 10 no. 4, 4th
Quarter 2008.
[15] T. Clausen, P. Jacquet, A. Laouiti, P. Muhlethaler, A.
Qayyum,L.Viennot, “Optimized link state routing protocol for
ad hoc networks,” in: “Proceedings of IEEE INMIC”,
December 2001, pp.62–68.
[16] A. A. Pirzada, C. McDonald and A. Datta, “Performance
Comparison of trust-based Reactive Routing Protocols,”
“IEEE Trans. Mobile Computing”, vol. 5, issue 6, June 2006,
pp. 695-710.